Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

I think this approach is one to attempt, though of course the where and
how will take a while :)

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> My answer is yes, this is the way to go.
> 
> In answer to Christian, I would comment that *everything*
> I say on this list is conditioned by sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
> of draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-07. That
> rather drastically limits the forms of id/loc split
> I am willing to contemplate, when we fly down from
> the 10,000 meter level of Tony's question.
> 
>    Brian
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Brian E Carpenter 
> Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
> 
> NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
> 
> Tony Li wrote:
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I don't mean to disrupt other constructive conversations,
> > so please carry on with those.
> > 
> > I'd just like to get a sense from the group about where
> > we are so far.  Do we have consensus about splitting
> > the address into locators and identifiers?  Note that
> > I'm NOT asking about specifics, like "how big", "what
> > mappings exist", "is it secure", etc. Do we agree that
> > we want to go down this path?
> > 
> > Silence is not assent...
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Tony